Outliving this Day and Coming Safe Home

The first day of National Prohibition — January 17, 1920.

Today is the one-hundredth anniversary of a day that will live in infamy only marginally less so than December 7, 1941 or September 11, 2001.

Worst of all of its dreadful results, it resulted in nearly a century of bad beer. See “America’s Bad Taste in Beer Is Prohibition’s Legacy” by Neil Reid in today’s Wall Street Journal

Where’s Tom T. Hall when we need him. Actually, he’s well and 83 years old. Presumably, he still likes beer. As he said, even before the craft movement.

“I like beer, it makes me a jolly good fellow
“I like beer, it helps me unwind and sometimes it makes me feel mellow (Makes him feel mellow)
“Whiskey’s too rough, Champagne costs too much, vodka puts my mouth in gear
This little refrain should help me explain as a matter of fact I like beer”

This week I heard the tail end of a feature on NPR radio about a new study made by MIT scientists about determining the strength of knots. I was reminded of the persistent nuisance of shoelaces’ tendency to become untied, usually at the most inconvenient time.

The Economist magazine had an article in 2017 concerting the shoelace problem. As it happened, the British Royal Society published a paper that year reporting the first scientific study of this phenomenon. At the time, I thought it might be an interesting subject for a post, but put it aside because of other pressing matters. The recent radio feature re-piqued my interest.See here.

As a child, I learned that when tying my shoes, making an additional knot of the bow generally solved the problem. Even remembering, or not wanting to take the extra few seconds to tie that additional knot, and the prospect of having to pick it apart when untying, meant that I often did not do so. I later learned from the Boy Scouts that tying a “square” knot (sometimes called a “reef” knot, mainly by the British) would hold better than the more common knot, called a “granny” knot, that resulted from repeating the same twist of the string or rope.

Today I often avoid the problem by wearing slip-on shoes. At one time, wearing such shoes for business purposes was an etiquette faux-pas (no pun intended). It has became more acceptable during recent times, especially for those in my line of work, because of the inconvenience of removing shoes to go through security points at courthouses and other government buildings, not to mention airports. (I can attest that going through the process of getting trusted-traveler status with the TSA so one does not have to remove their shoes is worth the effort.)

The Royal Society, formally The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, is Great Britain’s national academy of sciences. It was founded on November 28, 1660, and was granted a royal charter by King Charles II as “The Royal Society.” Its first meeting featured a lecture at Gresham College in London by Christopher Wren, the architect of St. Paul’s Cathedral and other noted structures. The Society included Wren and other leading thinkers and natural philosophers (17th Century-speak for scientist) including Robert Boyle (“Boyle’s Law” of gases) and mathematician Bishop John Wilkins. Sir Isaac Newton was a Fellow and served as president from 1703 until his death in 1727. It remains among the preeminent scientific organizations in the world.

The Royal Society’s motto Nullius in verba is taken to mean “take nobody’s word for it.” It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

Not to take anyone’s word that a square knot would hold better, the Society published in its proceedings “The roles of impact and inertia in the failure of a shoelace knot” in April 2017. See here. This study – 16 pages on-line with charts and illustrations – was not the final word.

MIT scientists in the “Topological mechanics of knots and tangles” found in the current issue of Science magazine, took the study of knots to a new level. See here. They used special fibers that change color when they are under strain that help scientists come up with some simple rules that can predict how a knot will perform in the real world. They discovered that the twist of the rope or string determines the strength. The difference between a granny knot and a square knot is the granny twists are in the same direction and the square knot’s twists are in opposite directs. This tends to strengthen the knot.

For tying one’s shoes, the researchers determined that one way to know if they are tied in a square knot is if the laces lie perpendicular to the foot. If they lie parallel, one has a granny knot. They caution, however, that even the square knot will fail eventually.

Remember this when tying your shoes — or rock climbing.

One project — I hesitate to all it a New Year’s Resolution — this writer is attempting this year is to publish more frequently on this blog. Unfortunately, paying work often gets in the way, and leisure time may often be better spent. However, we’ll try with some varied interest pieces.

The journey from Dallas to central the central Texas Hill Country can take a number of routes, but the one we have found the most pleasant and efficient is driving to Hillsboro, and then west on State Highway 22 to Hamilton, and then US 281 South to our destination.

The town of Cranfills Gap is little more than a wide spot in the road on Highway 22 in Bosque County, midway between Meridian and Hamilton. Traveling west at an intersection there, one may notice a sign pointing to the right directing the way to St. Olafs Church. The sign jogged my memory back to a news article in the 1980s where the King of Norway visited Texas to commemorate the mid-19th Century settlement here by Norwegian immigrants. I vaguely recalled a news story in the 1980s about a historic church in Cranfills Gap where His Majesty and local and state dignitaries were photographed. It seemed interesting to take a first-hand look at that church, so we turned off the road and drove a few blocks to the 100-year-old structure that served the local Lutheran community. While it is impressive, it does not seem to be all that special. A historical marker in front of the main entrance, however, directs visitors to what it describes as “The Rock Church” roughly 3 miles to the east on County Road 4145.

Norwegian settlers, led by one Cleng Peerson began arriving in Bosque County in 1854. A few miles west of Clifton, at a settlement called Norse, they built Our Saviour’s Lutheran Church, which still survives as the only structure there. A few decades later, members decided to build another church closer to Cranfills Gap. Volunteers from the congregation built St. Olafs church in 1886, using rocks from a small nearby mountain. The building did not have, and still does not have running water or electricity. It is heated by an old wood-burning stove, which has been restored and is in service today, as is the Vocalion Reed Pump Organ that was manufactured before 1900. The pews, floors, and light fixtures are all original. The church’s Ladies Aid Organization purchased the Swedish bell in the 1880s, and it still hangs in the bell tower.

By the second decade of the 20th Century membership had grown so much that it was necessary to build a larger building for the congregation. St. Olafs Church was built in Cranfills Gap in 1917. (Note: the town’s and church’s names are spelled without the possessive apostrophe.) The Cranfills Gap church observed its centennial two years ago. The congregation supports, maintains, and is responsible for both church buildings. The Rock Church has services on holy days, especially Christmas and Easter. It is available for christenings, weddings, and funerals. Services were conducted in Norwegian until the 1940s.

St. Olafs Cemetery is located adjacent to the church, and now has around 3,000 grave sites. A major renovation and restoration occurred in 2010, and in 2012 a Gathering Place was built and opened for church events and by congregation members and groups.

During my visit, I met a friendly young woman who informed me her great-grandfather was one of the builders of The Rock Church. She informed me that most of those who worked on the construction during the 1880s are buried in the Cemetery and many of their descendants still reside in Cranfills Gap and the surrounding countryside.

Here’s a map showing the location.

For more information please see The Rock Church

A Wall Street Journal editorial (December 27, 2019 – link here) catalogued Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s agenda if she were to be successful in her bid. These items consist of methods for raising revenue through “soak the rich” taxation, using those revenues to fund various programs and projects that would expand the federal government to an unprecedented degree that dwarfs FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society. While Warren is not the only candidate who would support all or most of these proposals, she has been more specific in providing a wish list for the American far left-wing. These are presented below with comments. To wit:

• Wealth tax: Tax net worth over $50 million at 2% a year, and 6% above $1 billion. To prevent the rich from yachting off, add a 40% “exit tax” on assets over $50 million.

This is probably unconstitutional as a direct tax not apportioned to the Census. The case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895) appears to be still good law. The 16th Amendment made an exception for income taxes, but not all such direct taxes. Still, there is sufficient ambiguity that a Congress so inclined might pass such a tax, which would doubtless result in years of legal battles that would have to be resolved by the Supreme Court. That resolution would then depend on the makeup of the Court at the time the issue is presented.

• Medicare for All tax: Charge companies with at least 50 workers an “Employer Medicare Contribution.”

This burden would fall most heavily on small businesses that are growing. And it would be another incentive to use technology to reduce the number of employees in businesses of all sizes.

• Global corporate tax: Raise the top business rate to 35%. Apply this as a world-wide minimum on overseas earnings by U.S. companies.

This would result in double-taxation for U. S. companies who do business abroad and reduce their competitive position in the foreign marketplace.

• Corporate surtax: Tax profit over $100 million at a new 7% rate.

Defining “profit” whether unrealized or otherwise can be complicated. This would be a tax lawyer’s and accountant’s dream.

• Slower expensing (sic): “Our current tax system lets companies deduct the cost of certain investments they make in assets faster than those assets actually lose value.”

This is true, but it gives businesses an incentive to purchase new equipment rather than make do with older, less efficient devices. The downstream effect is to penalize innovation, manufacturing, and sales of business equipment.

• Higher capital gains taxes: Tax the investment gains of the wealthiest 1% as ordinary income.

Anyone who believes this will be limited to the so called “wealthiest 1%” should be reminded that once a tax method is enacted, modification is much easier. The first income tax was modest and only applied to a small number of persons. Anyway, this is another tax lawyer and accountant boon.

• Finance taxes: Tax the sale of bonds, stocks and so forth at 0.1%.

This, of course, penalizes the beneficiaries of IRA, 401k, and other plans that so many employees rely upon for retirement.

• Individual tax increases: There’s no detailed proposal.

The vagueness of this proposal is scary. It could be detrimental to every working person.

• Social Security: Increase benefits by $2,400 a year across the board. Raise them further “for lower-income families, women, people with disabilities, public-sector workers, and ‘people of color’”

This is so open-ended as to be scary. Public sector workers? Most, particularly federal employees, are covered by cushy pensions. Women? Just because of their sex? Who is a “person of color”? I’m still wondering. Is there a color chip we can obtain somewhere? A “colored person” used to mean a Negro or black person, but that term is disfavored, particularly by the left. Wonder if this would apply to Oprah Winfrey?

• Lobbying tax: Tax “excessive lobbying.”

There are serious First Amendment implications in this proposal. The Supreme Court in the Citizens United case has held as much. Warren has a dollar amount on what she would consider “excessive,” but even so, lobbying is protected as free speech and the ability to petition the government for redress of grievances.

According to Warren, this would raise $19.5 trillion, mind boggling and meaningless to most people, over a decade. As noted this would not include the increased social security taxes.

What is all this supposed to fund? Here are some proposals.

• Green New Deal: Spend $3 trillion, including $1.5 trillion on industrial mobilization, $400 billion on research, and $100 billion on a Marshall Plan.

Not sure what would Green New Deal entail. As H. L. Mencken observed, the old New Deal encouraged pillage and bribery. It began, he opined, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace.

• An end to fossil fuels: Ban fracking. Halt new drilling leases on federal land. “Prohibit future fossil fuel exports.” Kill the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. “Subject each new infrastructure project to a climate test.” Give “workers transitioning (sic) into new industries” a “guaranteed wage and benefit parity” and “promised pensions and early retirement benefits.

Talk about a prescription to ruin our economy. Superior innovation enabled the U. S. to finally become energy independent and a net exporter of petroleum products through fracking. Do the leftists really believe we’re going to give that up? Also, fracking mainly produces natural gas, which is considerably less polluting than other fuels. Petroleum is the raw material for many products other than its use as a fuel. Not surprisingly, there was no reference to expansion of nuclear power. Even though nuclear, which the left abhors, is the only way to seriously limit dependence on fossil fuels.

• K-12 education: Add $450 billion to Title I, $200 billion for students with disabilities, $100 billion for “excellence grants,” and $50 billion for school upgrades. “End federal funding for the expansion of charter schools.”

Charter schools have been the success story of the last two decades for public education. Anyway, education is a state function and federal DOE meddling has increased the expense and cumbersomeness of public education. Urban school districts typically have more administrators than teachers. And they are generally better paid.

• A “right” to child care: Build a federal network of local providers, subject to national standards. Give free care to the “millions of children” whose households are under 200% of poverty, or $51,500 for a family of four. For everyone else, cap child-care spending at 7% of income.

Why should there by a federal “right” to child-care? And what does it actually mean? Again, this should be a state function. The “everyone else” cap seems to mean that individuals cannot spend their own money or resources as they see fit — a totalitarian limit on individual freedom.

• Free college: “Give every American the opportunity to attend a two-year or four-year public college without paying a dime in tuition or fees.”

It is true that a college education increases one’s earning power, but college is not for everyone. Making something free debases it as being of little value. Various trades can provide good earnings, and money could be better spent funding trade schools for those so inclined. Right now, the U. S. is importing trades from other countries; try to find a construction worker, even a highly skilled one, who can speak English. Our neighbors to the south are doing a better job of training trades.

• Student-debt forgiveness: Write off $50,000 for households with incomes under $100,000.

Perhaps in some cases, it can be warranted. As it is, there is partial or even full forgiveness for performing certain skills in under-served areas. What would happen to this incentive? Like so many of these other proposals, unintended consequences abound.

• Housing: Spend $500 billion “to build, preserve, and rehab” millions of affordable-housing units. Condition such funding “on repealing state laws that prohibit local rent control.”

“Affordable-housing” is bound to mean substandard. Rent-control breeds deterioration of the property, and would have the consequence of reducing the available rental properties.

Other wishes include:

• Unions: Overturn “so-called ‘right to work’ laws” in 27 states. Guarantee public employees an ability to “bargain collectively in every state.” Amend labor law to aid “sectoral bargaining.” Give the National Labor Relations Board “much stronger” powers, such as “to impose compensatory and punitive damages.”

The repeal of section 12b of the Taft-Hartley Act (the right-to-work provision) has been a left-wing goal for 60 years, unsuccessful fortunately. All of the states having such laws have been well-served in economic growth. Giving public employees the ability to bargain collectively has the effect of the government entity bargaining with other people’s – the taxpayer’s – money. The public entity’s representative has no incentive to bargain fairly on behalf of his employer.

• Corporate governance: Make companies with revenue over $1 billion obtain a new federal charter—separate from the current state charter system—that requires them to “consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders.” Give workers 40% of board seats, and put CEOs under “a new criminal negligence standard.”

How can the interest of nebulous “stakeholders” be measured? The only “stakeholders” who should matter to the governing body of a corporate entity are the stockholders, whose benefit or detriment is a result of good or poor management.

• Industrial policy: Manage the dollar’s value “more actively” to “promote exports and domestic manufacturing.”

If only a few of Warren’s tax/revenue gathering schemes are implemented, only magicians will be able to successfully “manage the dollar’s value.”

• Antitrust: Break up Amazon, Facebook and Google. “Unwind” their mergers with Whole Foods, Instagram, DoubleClick and more.

The founders and management of the named organizations, who have been generally sympathetic to the left, on social issues anyway, might change their thinking regarding their political inclinations. The general standard for monopolies is restraint of trade. It is unclear how any of these entities restrain trade.

• Banking: Pass “a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act that breaks up the big banks.” Let the U.S. Postal Service “partner with local community banks” to provide “basic banking services like checking and savings accounts.”

Many of us have experience with the nationwide “big banks” that has not been good. Thus, I give my banking business to a locally owned bank, where I get personal service. Not sure where this comes from. Anyone who wants a bank account can obtain one. Most banks are more than willing to take charge of a a person’s money. They do charge for servicing demand accounts. Maybe this is more free stuff funneled through the U.S. Postal Service.

• Gun control: Create a “federal licensing system for the purchase of any type of firearm or ammunition.” Raise taxes to 30% on guns and 50% on ammo. Ban sales of “assault weapons,”and make current owners “register them under the National Firearms Act.” Pass a law to let shooting victims “hold the manufacturer of the weapon that harmed them strictly liable.”

You were waiting for this. Not only are there serious Constitutional problems with this proposal, it would result in a vast number of presently law-abiding citizens to become criminals without their committing a single act, and it will not disarm a single current criminal. Few of the law-abiding and none of the criminals would voluntarily comply with federal registration. There may well be thousands of unregistered machine-guns in private hands here in the U.S. as we speak. Implementation of this policy would require a totalitarian state, and a vastly expanded ATF. The strict liability would put the domestic manufacturers out of business, but even if it didn’t, do we really want the manufacturer of a gun used by one drug dealer to shoot another one, to pay under that or similar circumstances?

• Centralized elections: Use federal money to “replace every voting machine in the country.” For federal elections, mandate early voting and same-day registration. If state elections follow the same rules, they can be “fully funded by the federal government,” with “a bonus for achieving high voter turnout.”

Again, more Constitutional problems. Even federal elections are governed by state law.

• Miscellaneous. Give congressional staff “competitive salaries.” Recruit 10,000 people to “a 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps.” End entry fees at national parks. Buy flood-prone houses “for low-income homeowners at a value that will allow them to relocate.” Plus much more.

One would shudder to think about what “much more” means. One item not specifically mentioned (except the employment tax) was the “Medicare for All” scheme. Contrary to many impressions, generally among those under 65, current Medicare in the U.S. is not entirely “free.” There are co-pays and deductibles, which can be covered by private insurance. Warren’s articulated plan is to phase out private insurance and make it illegal. Interestingly, Canadian federal law makes it illegal for private clinics to provide medical services that are covered by the Canada Health Act practice, restrictions which are said rival to those of Cuba and North Korea. It appears the law is widely flouted, and Canadians who can afford it (or obtain health insurance in the U. S.) come here for medical treatment. Americans by and large are satisfied with their health insurance, and certainly do not want to emulate Cuba or North Korea.

It is doubtful that Warren, or any other candidate, could get all, or even most of these proposal through Congress, and past a legal challenge. Nevertheless, many Americans might be enticed by a lot of what looks like free stuff. Why not soak the rich? An aggressive and persistent President and a compliant Congress could result in many of these proposals being passed. Recall that Obamacare was essentially crammed down the nation’s throat by a bare, ephemeral (and tyrannical) majority despite clear indications that many were not comfortable with it.

One final thought. President Donald Trump can be rude, crude, and loves hyperbole. He is not, as so many of those who disdain him say, a fascist or a racist. Those terms have become all purpose epithets for use by those who either have a warped notion of what they mean, or do know, but use them anyway to stir up the useful idiots. Communism and genuine socialism are not that different from the fascism of the 20th Century. A deep analysis reveals that the Warren agenda has many fascist characteristics. It is government commandeering the economy to suit its purposes in a way that is necessarily totalitarian. Creation of a vast bureaucracy that can supplant due process and make its own regulations that have the force of law was characteristic of National Socialist Germany. There are certain hints of racism in this present agenda. Lumping so-called “persons of color” into a group that vilifies those not eligible for membership; i.e., so-called “white” people, is a fascist hallmark, albeit with a twist. Though it does have precedent in the Soviet oppression of the kulaks during the 1930. (Some would say genocide –- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn suggested that six million kulaks were murdered by Stalin; if true it would put that atrocity on the same level of the Nazi Holocaust.)

Given this analysis, and considering Ms. Warren’s attempt at ethnic identification, I wondered how to say Il Duce or Der Führer in Cherokee. The only possibility I found is Ugvwiyuhi. Haven’t figured out how to pronounce it, though.

The Dallas Morning News (Saturday, November 9, 2019  and other media reported the resignation of an assistant general counsel for the University of North Texas.

“During a university-sponsored event on Thursday at the University of North Texas, the event’s speaker — UNT assistant general counsel Caitlin Sewell — used a racial epithet while discussing the limits of free speech on campus.

“Following a storm of controversy, Sewell submitted her resignation Friday morning, UNT system chancellor Lesa Roe and president Neal Smatresk said in a statement.

“At the event, titled “When Hate Comes to Campus,” Sewell said the following during her presentation:

“‘You know, you can say a lot of offensive things in here because it’s impossible to talk about the First Amendment without saying horrible things. Um, you know, ‘You’re just a dumb n—– and I hate you.’ That alone, that’s protected speech.’”

“Sewell’s use of the epithet sparked a firestorm….”

The article further quotes UNT President Neal Smatresk saying that “Sewell’s comment was ‘not reflective of the values of our university community.’”

“Student backlash prompts resignation” is yet another example of allowing inmates to run the asylum. Putting that aside, UNT is better off without Caitlin Sewell as assistant general counsel. I would not want anyone so pusillanimous to be my lawyer. Evidently she has not been in the real practice of law to have grown a thick enough skin. If Sewell had any mettle, and really believes in freedom of expression, she would have not apologized for using the so-called N-word merely as an illustration — not as a epithet. She should have refused to resign, and dared UNT to fire her. (I know an organization known as The FIRE who would back her.) For that matter, UNT’s president and chancellor should follow her. Their attitude fosters the snowflake atmosphere on campus.

The proscription of a word for use in any context is stupid and silly, and is reflective of a totalitarian mentality. That is what George Orwell was getting at in his Nineteen Eighty-Four. Better to turn it around to your advantage as gay persons have done with the Q-word. In the 1960s, black comedian Dick Gregory wrote a book which he titled “n*****” and dedicated it to his mother writing “Dear Mom, next time you hear that word, you’ll know they’re advertising my book.” Probably will not happen in the brave new world of coddled campuses.

I wonder if UNT, which I attended as a graduate student in the 1970s, is banning Huckleberry Finn, Gone with the Wind, and To Kill a Mockingbird.

See https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2019/11/08/staff-attorney-uses-n-word-as-example-during-free-speech-event-sparking-controversy-at-university-of-north-texas/)

This weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal features articles on the November 9, 1989 events in its “Review” section. (Print edition or See https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ordinary-people-who-brought-down-the-berlin-wall-11573228405 ) The WSJ online is available to non-subscribers this weekend.

There is also an article on the difficulty a former VOPO had in integrating into the western culture, and one dispelling the myth that President Kennedy made a mistake in grammar with his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech. I asked my German instructor decades ago about that, and she informed me that including the “ein” (trans. “a” — indefinite article) would NOT have changed the meaning to a jelly doughnut. This writer does a better job than I could explaining.

November 9, 1989 marked the fall of the Berlin Wall and the beginning of the end of the oxymoronic titled German Democratic Republic, popularly known as East Germany. The strongly fortified border between the two German states, and East and West Berlin had been in place since August 1961, a little more than 28 years. Strange as it may seem for those of us who remember the days of the Cold War and the division of Europe into hostile camps post-World War II, the Wall has been gone longer than it existed.

A border between the German states, and the Eastern and Western halves of Berlin, existed since the war ended. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, the four principal victors, United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union divided the former adversary into four zones of occupation. The capital, Berlin, was occupied in four sectors, supposedly administered by a joint authority. Berlin, however, was situated roughly in the center of the Soviet zone of occupation, 110 miles from the West. Even though the defeated Germany was supposed to be administered as a unit, the Soviets and the Western powers soon had a falling out. Josef Stalin, the dictator of the Soviet Union, wished to extend communist rule, and particularly into Germany, which though defeated, still had some of the greatest potential for future economic success in Europe. Stalin’s armies had already occupied most of Eastern Europe and converted those countries into Soviet satellites. As Winston Churchill put it in 1946, an Iron Curtain had descended across Europe from the Baltic Sea south to the Adriatic (Yugoslavia, although nominally communist, never really was a Soviet client). The Soviet zone, which later became the German Democratic Republic, nominally sovereign, was included behind Churchill’s Curtain. Berlin, a Western island in the communist bloc, guarded by U.S. and British military, was a potential flash-point.

The western sectors in Berlin, after the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany (West), though formally under the administration of the occupiers, were unified with a local government elected by Berliners for most functions. Travel by the inhabitants among them was uninhibited. Travel between the western sectors and the Soviet sector was somewhat restricted, but many easterners commuted to work in the western sectors and vice-versa.

That changed in 1961. The East throughout the 1950s had experienced considerable emigration of its inhabitants to the west. Because of the border, which had become increasingly fortified, it was easier to escape the East by traveling to Berlin and then leaving the Soviet sector, ostensible to work in the Western ones. Both East German communists and their Soviet masters feared a serious “brain drain” as well as the negative propaganda. Thus, in August 1961 the East German government headed by Walter Ulbricht, decided to seal off the eastern sector by building the Wall.

My first visit to Berlin was with a long time friend in August 1966, the summer between our junior and senior years in college. Traveling there by train was possible, but a transit visa was required, and the East German border police, known as the Volkspolizei (VOPOs) strictly scrutinized our papers during stops outside the West German border and Berlin. The Wall had been in place for five years, and the leaders of East Germany were celebrating that event. As citizens of a still officially occupying power, my companion and I were privileged to enter the East, while Germans, whether citizens of East or West, were prohibited from traveling between the two parts of Berlin. We had to purchase one-day visas, and exchange five West German marks, a hard currency, for five East German marks. Hardly a fair market exchange rate. We spent those marks on lunch, which I recall was not the tastiest meal I have ever had. The contrast between the sections of the city was dramatic. Much of the war damage in the East had not been repaired, and everything seemed dreary. Shelves in food stores seemed to be under-stocked. The people generally looked upon the two obvious Westerners, with suspicion, and even fear. West Berlin, on the other hand was a lively upbeat place where most of the war damage had been repaired or newly constructed, the shops were full of consumer merchandise and abundant groceries, and the restaurant food was very good, substantial German cuisine.

When leaving the East, as a rather brash college student I might have displayed somewhat of an attitude toward the VOPO, and was subject to some extra scrutiny. But I made it out, relieved to get back to the West.

Years later, in 1983, my brother and I traveled from Prague through East Berlin to the West.  We were similarly obliged to obtain transit visas upon entering East Germany from what was then Czechoslovakia. The scary looking VOPOs with their AK-47s displayed somewhat of an attitude themselves when they discovered the we shared a surname with the then U.S. President who really had an attitude toward the Soviet bloc. Upon arriving in Berlin shortly before midnight, we had about 30 minutes to find a checkpoint to get out to the West before our visas expired. The East Germans separated us briefly, and that was disconcerting. But, as it happened, we made it out, and had a great time in the West.

My next experience with Germany was in 1989. During the country’s division, the West German railroad between Nuremburg and Hannover skirted the Eastern border at several points. The barbed wire and watchtowers on the border were visible from the train. When traveling solo on a train in January 1989, I noticed the barrier wondered if the Wall and border would ever fall and Germany would be re-united.

As it turned out, we only had to wait about ten months. Tensions had been building up in the Soviet sphere for some time, and Mikhail Gorbachev, the USSR leader, realized that the cost of maintaining the Eastern European empire was too great. September and October of that year saw increasing unrest in Eastern Europe with hundreds of East Germans traveling to other Eastern Bloc countries to escape to the West. On November 9, the television news showed scores of people standing on top of the Wall, and within days it was permanently breached. In less than a year, the entire border was gone and Germany was unified. Within yet another year, the Soviet Union itself imploded and the tricolor Russian flag replaced the hammer and sickle over the Moscow Kremlin.
Berlin has been transformed as a unified city. My last trip to that city was in 1995. I saw the east was considerably improved, and development was everywhere. When we walked through the Brandenburg Gate, Martha asked me where the Wall had been, and I noted that she was standing on the very site. At least then and there, all traces had been obliterated.

Haven’t been back to Berlin, but I managed to visit Dresden in the East in 2010. As one can imagine, the atmosphere is totally different – no scary VOPOs asking for papers. Not even a checkpoint. A number of news sources have reported and commented that those in the former East German provinces are not sharing as much in the general prosperity. Even though Angela Merkel, the current German Chancellor, is an “Ostie” as easterners are called, it’s reported that some snobbery by the westerners exists. That probably is to be expected, after two generations living trapped under communism, they probably cannot be integrated into the free-market and democratic Western culture completely. Those born since the Wall fell, however, are just now coming into the age of full civic participation. They will work it out.

For the full article, see https://www.wsj.com/

A Tennessee woman says a paw-some shelter cat saved her 81-year-old father from a venomous snake that had crawled into the house.

The copperhead snake wound up on the losing end after running into the feline fighter, Shelly, in Jimmie Nelson’s house in Claiborne County

https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/Woman-says-rescue-cat-saved-dad-from-copperhead–562028711.html